How EVIL is liberalism anyway?

[P@triot]

This is how evil progressive ideology is...

 

[P@triot]

This is how evil progressivism is...

Virginia Governor Pardoned 60,000 Felons

 

[P@triot]

It's nice to see the rare honest progressive who calls out his own side for their disgusting hypocrisy...

"In the liberal community, you hate this idea of creating people as a monolith. “Don’t look as Muslims as a monolith. They are … individuals, and it would be ignorance. But everybody who voted for Trump is a monolith, is a racist.” That hypocrisy is also real in our country." - John Stewart

Jon Stewart criticizes 'hypocrisy' of 'liberal community'

 

[regent]

Or as General MacArthur said: "For the framers of the Constitution were the most liberal thinkers of all the ages and the charter they produced out of the liberal revolution of their time has never been and is not now surpassed in liberal thought."

Right? What a shame that it morphed into something so evil, so disgusting, and so oppressive.

The core beliefs of liberalism do not change much, but what does change is the means and methods to achieve liberalism. Those means and methods are such things as the size of government.

Not true. The founders that you claim were soooooo "liberal" insisted on liberty. Including the right for everyone to be armed everywhere. Does that sound like the "core" of liberals today? Does it?

The founders hat you claim were sooooo "liberal" insisted on an extremely small and limited federal government. Does that sound like the "core" of liberals today? Be honest.

The British had a large government to take care of the British elites, the dukes, earls and those of royal blood. In America, after our revolution, liberals wanted small government . When liberals became the government and realized the government that helped the dukes and earls could help ordinary Americans they changed their view on government. Liberals then began to use government to aid the common folk and are still in that mode. Conservatives still believe in helping the elites, now the wealthy. The size of government is not part of any ideology but a means to an end .

 

[P@triot]

Conservatives still believe in helping the elites, now the wealthy.

Really? Because I'm a die-hard conservative and I don't believe in helping elites at all. Any other misinformation you'd like to use USMB to spread?

 

[P@triot]

When liberals became the government and realized the government that helped the dukes and earls could help ordinary Americans they changed their view on government. Liberals then began to use government to aid the common folk and are still in that mode. Conservatives still believe in helping the elites, now the wealthy. The size of government is not part of any ideology but a means to an end .

Rather than just making stuff up (as you did there) you should relly read the original writings by the founders. I have and none of them talked about using government to "help" anyone. That is not the function of government and that is not why our founders established their own government.

 

[regent]

When liberals became the government and realized the government that helped the dukes and earls could help ordinary Americans they changed their view on government. Liberals then began to use government to aid the common folk and are still in that mode. Conservatives still believe in helping the elites, now the wealthy. The size of government is not part of any ideology but a means to an end .

Rather than just making stuff up (as you did there) you should relly read the original writings by the founders. I have and none of them talked about using government to "help" anyone. That is not the function of government and that is not why our founders established their own government.

Of course it is not why the founders established their own government but many felt it was a duty of government to help those in distress. Or as Jefferson said: "The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction is the first and only legitimate object of good government."

 

[P@triot]

When liberals became the government and realized the government that helped the dukes and earls could help ordinary Americans they changed their view on government. Liberals then began to use government to aid the common folk and are still in that mode. Conservatives still believe in helping the elites, now the wealthy. The size of government is not part of any ideology but a means to an end .

Rather than just making stuff up (as you did there) you should relly read the original writings by the founders. I have and none of them talked about using government to "help" anyone. That is not the function of government and that is not why our founders established their own government.

Of course it is not why the founders established their own government but many felt it was a duty of government to help those in distress. Or as Jefferson said: "The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction is the first and only legitimate object of good government."

No. Really. They didn't. At all. They were quite clear on that. You continue to make stuff up. In fact, the first idiot I'm aware of to make that case for the federal government was Abraham Lincoln.

(Psst....he wasn't a "founder". He came along almost 100 years later).

 

[regent]

When liberals became the government and realized the government that helped the dukes and earls could help ordinary Americans they changed their view on government. Liberals then began to use government to aid the common folk and are still in that mode. Conservatives still believe in helping the elites, now the wealthy. The size of government is not part of any ideology but a means to an end .

Rather than just making stuff up (as you did there) you should relly read the original writings by the founders. I have and none of them talked about using government to "help" anyone. That is not the function of government and that is not why our founders established their own government.

Of course it is not why the founders established their own government but many felt it was a duty of government to help those in distress. Or as Jefferson said: "The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction is the first and only legitimate object of good government."

No. Really. They didn't. At all. They were quite clear on that. You continue to make stuff up. In fact, the first idiot I'm aware of to make that case for the federal government was Abraham Lincoln.

(Psst....he wasn't a "founder". He came along almost 100 years later).

"To provide employment for the poor and support for the indigent is among the primary and at the same time not the least difficult cares of the public authority," James Madison

 

[P@triot]

"To provide employment for the poor and support for the indigent is among the primary and at the same time not the least difficult cares of the public authority," James Madison

Notice he said "public authority" and not "federal government"? A subtle, yet crucial distinction. The federal government is limited to 18 enumerated powers and creating jobs or helping people is not one of them.

 

[regent]

"To provide employment for the poor and support for the indigent is among the primary and at the same time not the least difficult cares of the public authority," James Madison

Notice he said "public authority" and not "federal government"? A subtle, yet crucial distinction. The federal government is limited to 18 enumerated powers and creating jobs or helping people is not one of them.

"The Constitution is what the Court say it is." So does the federal government create jobs or help people?

 

[P@triot]

"To provide employment for the poor and support for the indigent is among the primary and at the same time not the least difficult cares of the public authority," James Madison

Notice he said "public authority" and not "federal government"? A subtle, yet crucial distinction. The federal government is limited to 18 enumerated powers and creating jobs or helping people is not one of them.

"The Constitution is what the Court say it is." So does the federal government create jobs or help people?

The Constitution is exactly what is written on the constitution. Nothing less. Nothing more.

 

[P@triot]

This is how evil progressivism is...blatantly violating federal law. This progressive dill-hole needs to worry about more than his federal funding. He needs to be worried about new Attorney General Jeff Sessions prosecuting his criminal ass.

Notice how in typical progressive fashion he creates a false narrative?

“Political parties win and lose. Yet this election has made people question whether our leaders desire to maintain a diverse, tolerant society,” he said.

Hey dill-hole? You're not trying to maintain a "diverse" and "tolerant" society. You're trying to maintain a criminal society. People who are here illegally have committed a crime against the United States and its citizens.

Mayor Trolls President-elect Trump: Take Our Federal Funds, We Will Stay a Sanctuary City Forever - Breitbart

 

[regent]

"To provide employment for the poor and support for the indigent is among the primary and at the same time not the least difficult cares of the public authority," James Madison

Notice he said "public authority" and not "federal government"? A subtle, yet crucial distinction. The federal government is limited to 18 enumerated powers and creating jobs or helping people is not one of them.

"The Constitution is what the Court say it is." So does the federal government create jobs or help people?

The Constitution is exactly what is written on the constitution. Nothing less. Nothing more.

So where is it written that the Supreme Court will review laws and acts and decide their Constitutionality?

 

[P@triot]

So where is it written that the Supreme Court will review laws and acts and decide their Constitutionality?

ARTICLE III​

Section 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States; —between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.”

Excerpt From: States, United. “The United States Constitution.” iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

Check out this book on the iBooks Store: The United States Constitution

 

[TheDude]

Liberalism is a liberal term anymore. Today it stands for make-up a cause or story (look at this board, for example). It also stands for thought police, puzzified country, throw everything away and replace with decay and chaos. It's also code for socialism.

Too many rats in the cage.

 

[regent]

So where is it written that the Supreme Court will review laws and acts and decide their Constitutionality?

ARTICLE III​

Section 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States; —between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.”

Excerpt From: States, United. “The United States Constitution.” iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

Check out this book on the iBooks Store: The United States Constitution

You might check out Marbury v Madison, when the Court took the power unto themselves. I think every high school kid is supposed to learn this.

 

[P@triot]

So where is it written that the Supreme Court will review laws and acts and decide their Constitutionality?

ARTICLE III​

Section 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States; —between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.”

Excerpt From: States, United. “The United States Constitution.” iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

Check out this book on the iBooks Store: The United States Constitution

You might check out Marbury v Madison, when the Court took the power unto themselves. I think every high school kid is supposed to learn this.

What a bizarre twist on reality. Marbury vs. Madison is 100% in line with the U.S. Constitution. I'm going to repeat what was posted above since you seem confused...

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States

Does Congress not make laws? Does the Constitution not make it clear that judicial power exists to all cases, in law and equity, the laws of the United States?!? What part are you confused by here. You're trying to proclaim that something which reaffirms my position somehow proves your position. Bizarre.

 

[P@triot]

The left was the party of racism and continues to be the party of racism. This man is an officer upholding the law. Nobody could claim that these attacks are about anything other than his skin color...

CNN commentator: Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke is ‘like a terrorist’

 

[regent]

So where is it written that the Supreme Court will review laws and acts and decide their Constitutionality?

ARTICLE III​

Section 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States; —between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.”

Excerpt From: States, United. “The United States Constitution.” iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

Check out this book on the iBooks Store: The United States Constitution

You might check out Marbury v Madison, when the Court took the power unto themselves. I think every high school kid is supposed to learn this.

What a bizarre twist on reality. Marbury vs. Madison is 100% in line with the U.S. Constitution. I'm going to repeat what was posted above since you seem confused...

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States

Does Congress not make laws? Does the Constitution not make it clear that judicial power exists to all cases, in law and equity, the laws of the United States?!? What part are you confused by here. You're trying to proclaim that something which reaffirms my position somehow proves your position. Bizarre.

The Constitution does not make it clear that the Supreme Court has the power of Judicial Review which is why the Marshall Court had to have a trial in which the Court could declare that it has the power. Your quote on Article 3 says nothing about judicial review.
The framers may have intended Judicial Review or may not have, in any case the Constitution does not give the Court that power.